fact-specific inquiry in New York

2017Bank & Trust Co., 11 NY3d 146, 158 [2008]; New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd. v SGRisk, LLC, 116 AD3d 1148 , 1152 [2014]).

2017Bank & Trust Co., 11 NY3d at 158 ).

2025The analysis of whether the reckless disregard standard has been met "is a fact-specific inquiry [,] and our analysis is focused on the precautionary measures taken by [the emergency responder] to avoid causing harm to the general public weighed against [the emergency responder's] duty to respond to an urgent emergency situation" ( id . at 217-218 [emphasis added]; see McElhinney v Fitzpatrick , 193 AD3d 1409, 1409-1410 [4th Dept 2021]).

2025The analysis of whether the reckless disregard standard has been met "is a fact-specific inquiry [,] and our analysis is focused on the precautionary measures taken by [the emergency responder] to avoid causing harm to the general public weighed against [the emergency responder's] duty to respond to an urgent emergency situation" ( id . at 217-218 [emphasis added]; see McElhinney v Fitzpatrick , 193 AD3d 1409, 1409-1410 [4th Dept 2021]).

2025It is well settled that "[t]o state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiffs must allege that (1) defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, (2) defendant committed misconduct, and (3) they suffered damages caused by that misconduct" ( Besen v Farhadian , 195 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2021]).

2025It is well settled that "[t]o state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiffs must allege that (1) defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, (2) defendant committed misconduct, and (3) they suffered damages caused by that misconduct" ( Besen v Farhadian , 195 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2021]).

2025This calls for a fact specific analysis, including "the time differential between the Miranda violation and the subsequent admission; whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper questioning; and whether, prior to the Miranda violation, defendant had indicated a willingness to speak to police." ( People v. Paulman , 5 NY3d 122, 130-31 [2005]).

2025This calls for a fact specific analysis, including "the time differential between the Miranda violation and the subsequent admission; whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper questioning; and whether, prior to the Miranda violation, defendant had indicated a willingness to speak to police." ( People v. Paulman , 5 NY3d 122, 130-31 [2005]).

2025Ascertaining the existence of a fiduciary relationship "inevitably requires a fact-specific inquiry" ( Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 NY3d 553, 561 [2009]).

2011Ascertaining the existence of a fiduciary relationship “inevitably requires a fact-specific inquiry” (Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 561 [2009]).

2024A fiduciary relationship arises "between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation." Put differently, a fiduciary relation exists when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other" Ascertaining the existence of a fiduciary relationship "inevitably requires a fact-specific inquiry." (Roni LLC v. Arfa, 18 N.Y.3d 846, 848 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2019Roni LLC v Arfa , 18 NY3d 846, 848 [2011]).

2024The Court in Farano v. Stephanelli , 7 AD2d 420, 424 , 183 NYS2d 707, 711 (1st Dept 1959) stated that "Such a confidential relationship may exist between parent and child." ( id . citing Harrington v. Schiller , 231 NY 278 , 132 NE 89 ; Wood v. Rabe , 96 NY 414 ; Matter of Wicks' Estate , 7 Misc 2d 407 , 160 NYS2d 334 ).

2024The Court in Farano v. Stephanelli , 7 AD2d 420, 424 , 183 NYS2d 707, 711 (1st Dept 1959) stated that "Such a confidential relationship may exist between parent and child." ( id . citing Harrington v. Schiller , 231 NY 278 , 132 NE 89 ; Wood v. Rabe , 96 NY 414 ; Matter of Wicks' Estate , 7 Misc 2d 407 , 160 NYS2d 334 ).

2024Generally, the reasonableness of any attorney fee or litigation cost is a fact-specific inquiry, which can encompass the assessment of a number of factors: time and labor, difficulty of issues involved, skill and effectiveness of counsel, and the customary fee charged for similar services ( RMP Capital Corp. v Victory Jet, LLC 139 AD3d 836, 839 [2d Dept 2016]; JK Two LLC v Garber 171 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2019]).

2024Generally, the reasonableness of any attorney fee or litigation cost is a fact-specific inquiry, which can encompass the assessment of a number of factors: time and labor, difficulty of issues involved, skill and effectiveness of counsel, and the customary fee charged for similar services ( RMP Capital Corp. v Victory Jet, LLC 139 AD3d 836, 839 [2d Dept 2016]; JK Two LLC v Garber 171 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2019]).

2018Conduct] , 7 NY3d 213, 219-220 [2006]).

2017Whether a judge's behavior crosses the line of what constitutes "truly egregious" conduct is a fact-specific inquiry because "[j]udicial misconduct cases are, by their nature, sui generis" (Matter of Blackburne, 7 NY3d at 219-220 [2006]).

2014Bank & Trust Co., 11 NY3d 146, 158 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Marmelstein v Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue, 11 NY3d 15, 21 [2008]).

2014Bank & Trust Co., 11 NY3d 146, 158 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Marmelstein v Kehillat New Hempstead: The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue, 11 NY3d 15, 21 [2008]).

2015“Ordinarily, what constitutes a reasonable time is a fact-specific inquiry,” and plaintiffs allegations as to what transpired between the parties preclude dismissal of the complaint (Sutton v Burdick, 75 AD3d 884, 885 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 874 [2010]; see Lituchy v Guinan Lithographic Co., 60 AD2d 622, 622 [1977]; compare Hegeman v Bedford, 5 AD3d 632, 632-633 [2004]).

2010Ordinarily, what constitutes a reasonable time is a fact-specific inquiry (see Bernstein v La Rue, 120 AD2d 476, 477 [1986], lv dismissed 70 NY2d 746 [1987]; Lituchy v Guinan Lithographic Co., 60 AD2d at 622 ).

2008Determining whether excessive force was used in a particular instance requires “a fact-specific analysis in which an array of factors may be relevant, including the nature of the officer’s intrusion, the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat and whether the arrest was actively resisted” {Passino v State of New York, 175 Mise 2d 733, 736 [1998]; see Graham v Con-nor, 490 US 386, 396 [1989]).

1998Determining whether a police officer wielded excessive force requires a fact-specific analysis in which an array of factors may be relevant, including the nature of the officer’s intrusion, the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat and whether the arrest was actively resisted (see, Graham v Connor, 490 US 386 ; Monday v Oullette, 118 F3d 1099 ; Lamb v City of Decatur, 947 F Supp 1261 ).

2026Defendant's invocation of the primary assumption of risk doctrine is a fact-specific inquiry better suited to summary judgment than a motion to dismiss based only on the pleading ( see Vega v Ramirez , 57 AD3d 299, 300 [1st Dept 2008]).

2026"Particularly where, as here, a petitioner is seeking judicial review of a discrete military personnel decision that would unquestionably require a fact-specific inquiry into an area affecting military order and discipline, civilian courts must tread cautiously" (<i>Matter of Figueroa v Maguire</i>, 37 AD3d at 831 [citation omitted]).</p> <p>To be sure, the "non-justiciability of discretionary military decisions is not absolute" and courts may nevertheless review facial challenges to the constitutionality of military regulations as well as claims that the military failed to follow its own regu

2026"Particularly where, as here, a petitioner is seeking judicial review of a discrete military personnel decision that would unquestionably require a fact-specific inquiry into an area affecting military order and discipline, civilian courts must tread cautiously" (<i>Matter of Figueroa v Maguire</i>, 37 AD3d at 831 [citation omitted]).</p> <p>To be sure, the "non-justiciability of discretionary military decisions is not absolute" and courts may nevertheless review facial challenges to the constitutionality of military regulations as well as claims that the military failed to follow its own regu

2026"Particularly where, as here, a petitioner is seeking judicial review of a discrete military personnel decision that would unquestionably require a fact-specific inquiry into an area affecting military order and discipline, civilian courts must tread cautiously" (<i>Matter of Figueroa v Maguire</i>, 37 AD3d at 831 [citation omitted]).</p> <p>To be sure, the "non-justiciability of discretionary military decisions is not absolute" and courts may nevertheless review facial challenges to the constitutionality of military regulations as well as claims that the military failed to follow its own regu

2026In general, however, “the courts will disregard the corporate form. . .whenever necessary to prevent fraud or achieve equity” (Walkovsky v Carlton, 18 NY2d 414, 417 [1966] [internal citation and quotation marks omitted]). 162520/2015 vs.

2025It does not extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the contractor is to perform, or where the [workers] are engaged for the specific purpose of repairing the defect" ( Gasper v Ford Motor Co. , 13 NY2d 104, 110 [citations omitted]; see Kowalsky v Conreco Co. , 264 NY 125, 128-129 ; Vitale v Astoria Engergy II, LLC , 180 AD3d 1104, 1105-1106 ; Arcabascio v Bentivegna , 142 AD3d 1120, 1121 ). "[W]hether a dangerous condition is within the scope of the work an employee or contractor is hired to perform is a fact-specific inquiry" ( Grasso v New York State Thruway A